Its time for the BBC to sack Clarkson?

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2011 at 18:02

easyrider said:
Its against the rules to describe violence pre watershed.

.

LoL, there's plenty of violence, real, acted and describe before the water shed on all channels.

easyrider · 6 Dec 2011 at 18:03

Robosapien said:
It's all down to interpretation!

Exactly....and age and gender and where you live and all those factors in that bbc research Document.

Hence the ofcom watershed rules.

Gilly · 7 Dec 2011 at 07:54

easyrider said:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/protecting-under-18s/

JC broke the rules as he described Violence Joking or not.

Aha. No he didn't. From the very broadcasting code you linked to:

1.11 Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television) or when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio) and must also be justified by the context.

The quote from Clarkson was perfectly cromulent. It was appropriately limited and was very definitely justified by context (unless, as the media did, you choose to completely ignore the context). This makes it a perfectly viable statement, QED

easyrider said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/ace/pdf/ace_standards_report.pdf

Whole section on JC in the latter document.

Another Factor that was deemed unacceptable was not the comment about Lorry Drivers killing prostitutes its self but the knock on effect of the comment leading to Bullying in the school playground if a Child's Dad is a truck driver etc...as lots of kids watch Top Gear because they are into cars.

That's why Its important to look at the bigger picture rather than just the comment itself.

So your problem is not Clarkson on the One Show, it is just Clarkson?

Get a grip.

Nismo · 7 Dec 2011 at 08:48

Pretty sure this is the only place on the planet this is still being discussed

Ahleckz · 7 Dec 2011 at 10:36

easyrider said:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/protecting-under-18s/

JC broke the rules as he described Violence Joking or not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/ace/pdf/ace_standards_report.pdf

Whole section on JC in the latter document.

Another Factor that was deemed unacceptable was not the comment about Lorry Drivers killing prostitutes its self but the knock on effect of the comment leading to Bullying in the school playground if a Child's Dad is a truck driver etc...as lots of kids watch Top Gear because they are into cars.

That's why Its important to look at the bigger picture rather than just the comment itself.

Did you even read your links?

opstrat · 7 Dec 2011 at 10:42

this was discussed on question time a few nights ago. if i stood up in the audience and said the goverment are idiots and david cameron should be shot. should i loose my job and have to publicly apologise? no i wont, so why are these people any different?

freedom of speech dosnt excist anymore.

Gilly · 7 Dec 2011 at 10:54

opstrat said:
this was discussed on question time a few nights ago. if i stood up in the audience and said the goverment are idiots and david cameron should be shot. should i loose my job and have to publicly apologise? no i wont, so why are these people any different?

freedom of speech dosnt excist anymore.

Some would argue it never did.

shorttricky · 7 Dec 2011 at 13:48

easyrider said:
Its against the rules to describe violence pre watershed.

What don't you get?

Its Black and white right there in front of you to read.

Whether it was a joke or not is a moot point.

And yet somehow Horrible Histories (next airdate 07/12 18:20 CBBC), The Sarah Jane Adventures (next airdate 10/12 17:35 CBBC), Doctor Who (next airdate 25/12 19:00 BBC1/HD), Eastenders (next airdate 08/12 19:30 BBC1) and Frozen Planet (repeated 11/12 15:55 BBC1) all manage to currently air pre-watershed despite (between them) descriptions or depictions or rape, murder, violence, cot death, prostitution, beheading and drugs (to name a few).

That's not even taking into account what BBC news get away with showing or discussing.

Perhaps you have misunderstood/not really bothered to read your own links?

Or perhaps you could just have made a grown-up decision not to watch a show with a celebrity guest you clearly loathe?

easyrider · 7 Dec 2011 at 18:35

Gilly said:
Aha. No he didn't. From the very broadcasting code you linked to:

The quote from Clarkson was perfectly cromulent. It was appropriately limited and was very definitely justified by context (unless, as the media did, you choose to completely ignore the context). This makes it a perfectly viable statement, QED .

It cannot be justified by context

So your problem is not Clarkson on the One Show, it is just Clarkson?

Get a grip.

Both

eggcup · 7 Dec 2011 at 21:42

since when did the minority take precedence over the majority?

Gilly · 8 Dec 2011 at 09:15

easyrider said:
It cannot be justified by context

You are the only one in millions that believes so. That makes you wrong.

easyrider said:
Both

So just avoid him if your hatred of him clouds your judgement so much.

easyrider · 8 Dec 2011 at 18:10

Gilly said:
You are the only one in millions that believes so. That makes you wrong.

Why?

So just avoid him if your hatred of him clouds your judgement so much.

I don't mind him on the correct show and context....He's clearly out of his depth on Q.I and I enjoy him being unfunny as hes a bit thick

Gilly · 8 Dec 2011 at 20:21

easyrider said:
Why?

Is your ego so big that you can't see that everyone disagrees with you?

Pandering to the minority is exactly what is wrong today.

easyrider said:
I don't mind him on the correct show and context....He's clearly out of his depth on Q.I and I enjoy him being unfunny as hes a bit thick

He's really not. Not even slightly.

easyrider · 8 Dec 2011 at 20:23

Gilly said:
Is your ego so big that you can't see that everyone disagrees with you?

Pandering to the minority is exactly what is wrong today.

He's really not. Not even slightly.

Just because certain people disagree does not make it wrong...

Relatively speaking he is compared to Fry....hes not very good at improvisational comedy.

ps3ud0 · 8 Dec 2011 at 20:44

Gilly why waste any intellect on loleasyrider? He doesnt deserve the attention, nor the soapbox and hes obtuse for the sake of it - let him just go the same way as britboy, nothing lost really...

ps3ud0 :cool:

easyrider · 8 Dec 2011 at 21:05

ps3ud0 said:
Gilly why waste any intellect on loleasyrider? He doesnt deserve the attention, nor the soapbox and hes obtuse for the sake of it - let him just go the same way as britboy, nothing lost really...

ps3ud0

What exactly is your problem?

Gilly · 10 Dec 2011 at 11:27

Are you honestly now knocking Steven fry? You're just embarrassing yourself (even more) now.

steveo · 10 Dec 2011 at 12:03

the guy is only saying what 95% of the population are thinking, its just the 5% of whiney people that complain about it

Castiel · 10 Dec 2011 at 13:26

I like Clarkson.....and anyone who takes him too seriously needs a reality check tbh.

Stephen Fry is just pure class....I don't agree with everything he says, but again if you don't like him....don't watch him.

Gilly · 10 Dec 2011 at 14:17

steveo said:
the guy is only saying what 95% of the population are thinking, its just the 5% of whiney people that complain about it

It's not even 5%, it's less than 1%

It's just a vocal, and annoying, minority